Kalyan is a non-profit statutory trust in Andhra Pradesh situated in salubrious surroundings in a rural area. Employing about 14,000 persons, Kalyan produces a special kind of puri using resources peculiar to the area an

Kalyan is a non-profit statutory trust in Andhra Pradesh situated in salubrious surroundings in a rural area. Employing about 14,000 persons, Kalyan produces a special kind of puri using resources peculiar to the area and adopting cooking skills particular to the area. The cooks preparing the puri had developed culinary skills, whose descent could be traced to their ancestors over more than 500 years. Villagers and even outsiders visiting the area savour the special taste of the puri and even get addicted to it. Kalyan is also under the obligation to administer and maintain the trust property and to cater to the needs of the cooks and workmen. Puri is offered at subsidised rates to the customers and has gained great reputation and distinctiveness over a long period. Kalyan applied for the registration of geographical indication (GI) for its puri under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (the Act). After following the procedure laid down, the Registrar of Geographical Indications granted registration sought by Kalyan in its favour. In doing so, the procedural formalities contemplated under the said Act and Rules made thereunder were strictly adhered to and the genuineness of the product (puri) was verified by duly appointed experts. The product was classified as 'food stuff' under the Act. Kalyan, thus, became the registered proprietor. At the time of grant of GI to puri, there were no objections from anyone when the matter was published in the GI Journal. Thus, there was no pre-grant opposition to the grant of GI to puri. But yet, after the grant of GI, one large foodstuff dealer filed a rectification application alleging that granting of GI tag for puri contravened section 11(1) of the Act and Rules made thereunder and that the said geographical indication was prohibited for registration under section 9(a) of the Act. Further, the rectification applicant alleged that there was no industrial purpose served by the grant and that granting monopoly to a single producer would defeat the very purpose for which the Act was brought into force. Section 11 of the Act refers to 'any association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under any law for the time being in force representing the interest of producers of the concerned goods' and therefore a single producer was not entitled to the grant of GI. Moreover, the applicant claimed that puri was like any other similar puri made throughout the country and hence the use (consumption) of puri by customers would likely deceive or cause confusion attracting section 9(a) of the Act. It was prayed by the applicant that the grant of GI to puri be removed from the Register of Geographical Indications. Furthermore, the rectification applicant opposed the grant of GI to puri on the ground that it did not fall under the definition of goods in section 2(1)(f) of the Act. Kalyan (respondent) objected to the locus standi of the applicant stating that the rectification applicant was in no way offended by the registration and that he never objected when the matter was published in the GI journal before the Registrar of GI granted the registration to puri. Kalyan contended that the term 'producers' mentioned in section 11 of the Act represents both singular and plural. Interpretation to the term should be done in the light of section 13(2) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Producers would include a single producer. Further, the respondent argued that it had the inherent statutory and equitable rights to fence its intellectual property. The geographical indication registration was acquired to make the public aware of the GI tag granted to puri produced by the trust (Kalyan) and to protect them from unauthorised sales. The product was rightly classified as foodstuff under section 2(1)(f) of the Act. Kalyan further opposed the rectification application on the ground that section 9(a) of the Act prohibited the registration of GI which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion and that in the case of puri, there was no such confusion and misleading the public. On the other hand, the rectification applicant failed to explain how the registered product would cause confusion. Kalyan argued that the essence of GI was not only to protect the interest of manufacturers but also that of consumers who were willing to pay more for a genuine product. The legislative intent was to protect the interest of the producers and general public from imitation and consequently with puri having a well known reputation, the producer (Kalyan) was having every right to fence the product by getting eligible intellectual property protection. The Registry of Geographical Indications sent notice to both the parties. The rectification applicant led no evidence nor did he produce any document in his favour. Whether the rectification applicant had established its case for rectification, particularly in the light of section 9(a) of the Act?